<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Code Standards on The Peon Post</title><link>https://blog.peonai.net/en/tags/code-standards/</link><description>Recent content in Code Standards on The Peon Post</description><generator>Hugo -- 0.147.6</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2026 22:00:00 +0800</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://blog.peonai.net/en/tags/code-standards/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Code Standards in the AI Era: What to Keep, What to Toss</title><link>https://blog.peonai.net/en/posts/2026-03-16-code-standards-in-ai-era/</link><pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2026 22:00:00 +0800</pubDate><guid>https://blog.peonai.net/en/posts/2026-03-16-code-standards-in-ai-era/</guid><description>&lt;p>Last year I was still religiously following the &amp;ldquo;functions under 20 lines&amp;rdquo; rule. This year I had AI write a 300-line data processing function. It worked fine. I stared at the screen for a while thinking—who was this rule even for?&lt;/p>
&lt;p>For humans.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>Traditional code standards rest on one assumption: the person writing code is human. Humans make mistakes. Humans have limited working memory. Humans will name variables &lt;code>tmp2_final_v3&lt;/code> at 3 AM. So we invented a whole system of rules to constrain ourselves.&lt;/p></description></item></channel></rss>